Hi Jim, I shall look into these rightaway. I shall move the RMIHost interface into the extension package itself. I shall look into the exceptions and formatting as well.
- Venkat On 8/28/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we still have the same problem of piling everything into one project. We may wind up with a project having only one class (the interface) but this may be the best solution since it avoids having people update the Tuscany namespace with their extensions. Jim On Aug 27, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote: > Would host-api be the right place for RMIHost? > > -- > Jeremy > > On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:28 PM, Jim Marino wrote: > >> I came across a couple of things related to the RMI binding today. >> Venkat, when you get a chance, could you take a look at these? >> >> - Shouldn't RMIHost be in a separate extension package other than >> SPI? This question relates to bindings in general. I would like to >> avoid changing SPI for every new type of host provider we have. >> >> - The RMI exception hierarchy should extend from >> TuscanyRuntimeException, TuscanyException, or an SCA exception if >> application code is involved (e..g RemoteServiceException). >> Examples can be found at: >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/codeguidelines.html#Exception% >> 20Handling >> >> - There are a couple of PMD violations in the binding package. >> When you get a chance, can you take care of them? (mvn -Psourcecheck) >> >> Thanks, >> Jim >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
